The 1992 number is probably a little inflated for Republicans. Unlike in a state like say, Idaho, a Maine 1992 Perot voter is probably not all that conservative and is probably unavailable for Republicans in any other Presidential race, and definitely unavailable for Bush in 1992. Since then the state doesn't appear to be moving a lot. The 2010 takeover of the Maine Legislature is promising for Republicans. Don't get your hopes up about Mitt Romney winning Maine though. But stranger things have happened.

Basically a Democratic state. Bush probably overperformed in 1988 because of Willie Horton. Never a state with a strong Perot performance. It doesn't appear to trending Democratic as rapidly as one might expect but definitely out of reach for Republicans for at least another generation.

A lot of Southern states trended left in 1992 because Clinton was a Southerner and Perot didn't perform that well in the South, but other than that Kentucky is to the right of the country as a whole. Obama probably did a little worse than Democrats may do in the future. I think the two Bush elections are pretty reflective of where Kentucky is. Having Al Gore from the next state over vs. having John Kerry made little impact as the 2000 and 2004 numbers were virtually the same.

Bandit is going to have so much fun in this thread -he is absolutely convinced that Kentucky is another North Carolina or Virginia in-waiting....

Some folks think Minnesota is trending Republican perhaps because of the closeness between Bush and Gore in 2000, but Nader got a full 5.2% of the vote in 2000 in Michigan. It's within reach for Republicans but still a Democratic leaning state.

This state went from being a little more Democratic than the country as a whole to being a little more Republican. Mitt Romney is heavily favored here, but it doesn't seem to be trending rightward as rapidly as people might think.

This is a state where Perot probably drew heavily from Republicans. With Perot on the ballot in 1996, Bob Dole carried the state by 3 points. With Perot off the ballot and Ralph Nader on the ballot getting just shy of 6 percent, George W. Bush carried it by a whopping 25 points, but the shift using my formula was only 3.1 points. Dukakis overperformed here as he did in most rural areas. This state may be trending slightly to the left, but it's hard to say.

Like California, this state is trending Democratic. It wasn't fast enough for Al Gore or John Kerry though. This state has a unique feature where you can check off a box voting for "None of these candidates". I counted those as undervotes and repercentaged them. If you're interested, here was the "None of these candidates" for each year:

Did the Democratic trend in New Jersey bottom out in 2000? I thought 2004 was just a pro-Bush post 9/11 bounce, but Obama didn't do that great relative to his national average compared to Clinton in 1996 and Gore in 2000. Again, time will tell.

This state is more conservative than the country as a whole with 1992 and to a lesser degree 1996 being outliers. It was the combination of a Southern Democrat and the fact Perot was less popular in the South. Count on this state to be in Mitt Romney's column in November.

Does the slight trend away from the GOP from 2000 to 2008 signify anything? Or is it just statistical noise?

The conventional wisdom is that Hispanic-heavy Western states are trending rapidly Democratic, but the numbers indicate that this is just a state that is a swing state, perhaps slightly to the left, but that Obama overperformed. Whether this continues with nominees after him is to be determined.

New York is more Democratic than New Jersey, but it seems to be trending the exact same way. Trending Democratic, bottoming out in 2000, and moving very slowly to the right, but my guess is New York will be Democratic for many years to come. Connecticut got more Republican as well between 2000 and 2004, but unlike NY and NJ, it got MORE Democratic between 2004 and 2008.

There was some discussion earlier whether Kentucky was North Carolina in waiting, but Kentucky actually got more conservative post-2000 whereas North Carolina got more liberal. Nevertheless, it doesn't appear North Carolina is going to be a Democratic state anytime soon. The right-leaning vote in 2008 was actually higher than it was in 1992 relative to the national average despite the fact Barack Obama won the state and Bill Clinton never did. In 1992, most right-leaning voters stayed with HW Bush rather than voting for Ross Perot as many Northeastern and Western right-of-center people did. Lower than average Perot vote in North Carolina as in most of the South.

Except in 2008, South Dakota was generally more moderate, but these two states are similar. Does anyone know if the Clinton campaign targeted South Dakota in 1992 given that Dukakis actually did BETTER than his national average? Like Nebraska, these states are farm states and less affected by the swings in the economy that caused the two Clinton wins.

This state is very consistent. ALWAYS slightly (and only slightly) to the right of the country as a whole but basically a microcosm. Kerry did a little better than average in 2004 because there was a snowstorm in a conservative area of the state but even then it was a little to the right of the country. In a very close race, put this state in Mitt Romney's column in November.

This state doesn't fool around. It's very hard to get third parties on the ballot, and there are no write-ins. In 2004 and 2008, if you didn't want to vote for George Bush, John Kerry, Barack Obama, or John McCain, don't bother showing up. The second interesting point is this state is just getting more and more Republican. Every election is more Republican than the last. Will the Republican nominee in 2052 get 100% of the vote?

Except in 2008, South Dakota was generally more moderate, but these two states are similar. Does anyone know if the Clinton campaign targeted South Dakota in 1992 given that Dukakis actually did BETTER than his national average? Like Nebraska, these states are farm states and less affected by the swings in the economy that caused the two Clinton wins.

I wonder if the oil boom in North Dakota* will cause it to diverge from South Dakota.

*340% increase in production from 2007-2011 and recently passed Alaska to become the 2nd largest oil producing state: